[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 3/6] net: e1000: Convert to driver model

Simon Glass sjg at chromium.org
Tue Aug 11 19:17:13 CEST 2015


Hi Joe,

On 11 August 2015 at 09:53, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Update this driver to support driver model.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> ---
>
> Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
>
> ...but a few nits below.
>
>>
>> Changes in v2: None
>>
>>  drivers/net/e1000.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/net/e1000.h |   4 ++
>>  2 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000.c b/drivers/net/e1000.c
>> index 11bf9ca..25d0b39 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/e1000.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000.c
>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ tested on both gig copper and gig fiber boards
>>   */
>>
>>  #include <common.h>
>> +#include <dm.h>
>>  #include <errno.h>
>>  #include <pci.h>
>>  #include "e1000.h"
>> @@ -47,12 +48,21 @@ tested on both gig copper and gig fiber boards
>>  /* Intel i210 needs the DMA descriptor rings aligned to 128b */
>>  #define E1000_BUFFER_ALIGN     128
>>
>> +/*
>> + * TODO(sjg at chromium.org): Even with driver model we share these buffers.
>> + * Concurrent receiving on multiple active Ethernet devices will not work.
>> + * Normally U-Boot does not support this anyway. To fix it in this driver,
>
> It is true that we don't support this right now. Eventually we will,
> but I'm sure we will have to revisit every driver anyway, so this is
> fine for now.
>
>> + * nove these buffers and the tx/rx pointers to struct e1000_hw.
>
> move
>
>> + */
>>  DEFINE_ALIGN_BUFFER(struct e1000_tx_desc, tx_base, 16, E1000_BUFFER_ALIGN);
>>  DEFINE_ALIGN_BUFFER(struct e1000_rx_desc, rx_base, 16, E1000_BUFFER_ALIGN);
>>  DEFINE_ALIGN_BUFFER(unsigned char, packet, 4096, E1000_BUFFER_ALIGN);
>>
>>  static int tx_tail;
>>  static int rx_tail, rx_last;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>> +static int num_cards;  /* Number of E1000 devices seen so far */
>> +#endif
>>
>>  static struct pci_device_id e1000_supported[] = {
>>         { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82542) },
>> @@ -5279,8 +5289,10 @@ void e1000_get_bus_type(struct e1000_hw *hw)
>>         }
>>  }
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>>  /* A list of all registered e1000 devices */
>>  static LIST_HEAD(e1000_hw_list);
>> +#endif
>>
>>  static int e1000_init_one(struct e1000_hw *hw, int cardnum, pci_dev_t devno,
>>                           unsigned char enetaddr[6])
>> @@ -5367,6 +5379,7 @@ static void e1000_name(char *str, int cardnum)
>>         sprintf(str, "e1000#%u", cardnum);
>>  }
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>>  /**************************************************************************
>>  TRANSMIT - Transmit a frame
>>  ***************************************************************************/
>> @@ -5479,13 +5492,22 @@ struct e1000_hw *e1000_find_card(unsigned int cardnum)
>>
>>         return NULL;
>>  }
>> +#endif /* nCONFIG_DM_ETH */
>
> Usually such a comment looks like this instead:
>
> +#endif /* !CONFIG_DM_ETH */
>
> but I don't care that much.
>
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_E1000
>>  static int do_e1000(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag,
>>                 int argc, char * const argv[])
>>  {
>>         unsigned char *mac = NULL;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>> +       struct eth_pdata *plat;
>> +       struct udevice *dev;
>> +       char name[30];
>> +       int ret;
>> +#else
>>         struct e1000_hw *hw;
>> +#endif
>> +       int cardnum;
>>
>>         if (argc < 3) {
>>                 cmd_usage(cmdtp);
>> @@ -5494,9 +5516,18 @@ static int do_e1000(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag,
>>
>>         /* Make sure we can find the requested e1000 card */
>>         cardnum = simple_strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 10);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>> +       e1000_name(name, cardnum);
>> +       ret = uclass_get_device_by_name(UCLASS_ETH, name, &dev);
>> +       if (!ret) {
>> +               plat = dev_get_platdata(dev);
>> +               mac = plat->enetaddr;
>> +       }
>> +#else
>>         hw = e1000_find_card(cardnum);
>>         if (hw)
>>                 mac = hw->nic->enetaddr;
>> +#endif
>>         if (!mac) {
>>                 printf("e1000: ERROR: No such device: e1000#%s\n", argv[1]);
>>                 return 1;
>> @@ -5531,3 +5562,109 @@ U_BOOT_CMD(
>>         "       - Manage the Intel E1000 PCI device"
>>  );
>>  #endif /* not CONFIG_CMD_E1000 */
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>> +static int e1000_eth_start(struct udevice *dev)
>> +{
>> +       struct eth_pdata *plat = dev_get_platdata(dev);
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>
> Did you ever decide what to do with these type of accessors to add a
> little type safety?

Not really. I like your idea of asking people to add an accessor
function for each driver. But I have not gone back to it.

>
>> +
>> +       return _e1000_init(hw, plat->enetaddr);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void e1000_eth_stop(struct udevice *dev)
>> +{
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>> +
>> +       _e1000_disable(hw);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int e1000_eth_send(struct udevice *dev, void *packet, int length)
>> +{
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = _e1000_transmit(hw, packet, length);
>> +
>> +       return ret ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int e1000_eth_recv(struct udevice *dev, int flags, uchar **packetp)
>> +{
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>> +       int len;
>> +
>> +       len = _e1000_poll(hw);
>> +       if (len)
>> +               *packetp = packet;
>> +
>> +       return len ? len : -EAGAIN;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int e1000_free_pkt(struct udevice *dev, uchar *packet, int length)
>> +{
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>> +
>> +       fill_rx(hw);
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int e1000_eth_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>> +{
>> +       struct eth_pdata *plat = dev_get_platdata(dev);
>> +       struct e1000_hw *hw = dev_get_priv(dev);
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       hw->name = dev->name;
>> +       ret = e1000_init_one(hw, trailing_strtol(dev->name), pci_get_bdf(dev),
>> +                            plat->enetaddr);
>> +       if (ret < 0) {
>> +               printf(pr_fmt("failed to initialize card: %d\n"), ret);
>> +               return ret;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int e1000_eth_bind(struct udevice *dev)
>> +{
>> +       char name[20];
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * A simple way to number the devices. When device tree is used this
>> +        * is unnecessary, but when the device is just discovered on the PCI
>> +        * bus we need a name. We could instead have the uclass figure out
>> +        * which devices are different and number them.
>> +        */
>
> I guess it depends if we expect to see this pattern in many drivers.

I suspect we may want to address this, but let's see.

>
>> +       e1000_name(name, num_cards++);
>> +
>> +       return device_set_name(dev, name);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct eth_ops e1000_eth_ops = {
>> +       .start  = e1000_eth_start,
>> +       .send   = e1000_eth_send,
>> +       .recv   = e1000_eth_recv,
>> +       .stop   = e1000_eth_stop,
>> +       .free_pkt = e1000_free_pkt,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct udevice_id e1000_eth_ids[] = {
>> +       { .compatible = "realtek,e1000" },
>> +       { }
>> +};
>> +
>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(eth_e1000) = {
>> +       .name   = "eth_e1000",
>> +       .id     = UCLASS_ETH,
>> +       .of_match = e1000_eth_ids,
>> +       .bind   = e1000_eth_bind,
>> +       .probe  = e1000_eth_probe,
>> +       .ops    = &e1000_eth_ops,
>> +       .priv_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct e1000_hw),
>> +       .platdata_auto_alloc_size = sizeof(struct eth_pdata),
>> +};
>> +
>> +U_BOOT_PCI_DEVICE(eth_e1000, e1000_supported);
>> +#endif
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000.h b/drivers/net/e1000.h
>> index bfacd4e..543459d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/e1000.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000.h
>> @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@
>>  #include <linux/list.h>
>>  #include <malloc.h>
>>  #include <net.h>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>>  #include <netdev.h>
>> +#endif
>
> Is there a need to not include this in the DM case? Or are you just
> trying to document what should be removed when !DM is purged?
> Typically I would not #ifdef an include.

I gives a build error at present.

>
>>  #include <asm/io.h>
>>  #include <pci.h>
>>
>> @@ -1073,7 +1075,9 @@ typedef enum {
>>  struct e1000_hw {
>>         const char *name;
>>         struct list_head list_node;
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH
>>         struct eth_device *nic;
>> +#endif
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_E1000_SPI
>>         struct spi_slave spi;
>>  #endif
>> --
>> 2.5.0.rc2.392.g76e840b

Regards,
Simon


More information about the U-Boot mailing list